Eleanore A. Cronk

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder in the killing of a taxicab driver.

He argued that the trial judge erred in her instructions on the use of his police statements and post-offence conduct, and that the Crown's cross-examination was improper.

He also alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to lead evidence of a 'family conspiracy' by his co-accuseds' family to frame him.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions or the Crown's cross-examination, and concluding that trial counsel's tactical decisions were sound and did not constitute ineffective assistance.

The appellants, an engineering firm and its principal, appealed a trial judgment apportioning liability for damages between them and their insurers.

The trial judge found the appellants liable in negligence and breach of contract for errors and delays in engineering drawings for a construction project.

The trial judge apportioned 45% of the damages to the appellants and 55% to the insurers, based on an exclusion clause for delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that all delays were caused by the appellants' negligence in having to correct errors, which was covered under the policy.

The insurers' cross-appeal regarding the assessment of damages and the date used for foreign currency conversion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and breach of probation arising from a domestic dispute.

At trial, the judge erroneously excluded exculpatory statements made by the appellant to a police officer.

The Crown conceded the error but argued the curative proviso should apply.

The Court of Appeal held that the error was not harmless or trivial, as the convictions relied heavily on the complainant's credibility, which was contested.

The curative proviso could not be applied, and the convictions were quashed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and related offences arising from a home invasion.

The convictions rested primarily on the testimony of an accomplice who had pleaded guilty but had not yet been sentenced.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to exercise necessary caution in accepting the accomplice's evidence and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the accomplice's subsequent sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding it lacked cogency, and dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly cautioned himself regarding the unsavoury witness and made no reversible error in assessing credibility.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault against his step-daughter.

He argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence solely because he accepted the complainant's evidence, misapplied the burden of proof, and improperly ruled prior out-of-court statements inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the burden of proof was properly applied, and the trial judge's credibility findings were sound despite the evidentiary ruling on prior statements.

In a youth criminal appeal from convictions for historical sexual offences against a child relative, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third branch of W. (D.) in a case turning on credibility and reliability.

The court held that the trial judge did not adequately resolve significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s evidence, the mother’s evidence, and prior statements, and also failed to sufficiently explain important inferential findings central to guilt.

Although the court rejected the argument that expert evidence was required before the trial judge could refer to the complainant’s childhood behaviour as part of the credibility assessment, the cumulative deficiencies in the reasons constituted reversible error.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The parties separated after a 15-year marriage.

The trial judge granted the respondent a 50 per cent beneficial interest in the matrimonial home on a resulting trust and dismissed the appellant's claims for unequal division of net family property and retroactive support.

The appellant appealed, seeking an interest in the respondent's RRSP and retroactive support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not pleaded the RRSP trust claim at trial and that the trial judge made no errors in denying retroactive support based on the parties' conduct and circumstances.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim against a former employee for alleged theft.

The motion judge had found no admissible evidence of theft and noted that the appellant's owner had been convicted of attempted extortion against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's treatment of the evidence or his reliance on the criminal trial findings.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment for repayment of a $500,000 loan.

The motion judge found that claims based on the 2003 and 2005 promissory notes were statute-barred, and that a purported 2008 replacement note was a forgery based on uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the forgery issue was properly determined on the summary judgment record and that the appellant's reliance on a forged note disentitled him to any equitable relief.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a slip and fall action.

The appellants claimed they only learned of the action when enforcement proceedings began, 12 years after the incident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellants had evaded service, failed to act promptly, lacked a plausible explanation for their delay, and presented a defence of dubious merit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent a 45% interest in a commercial property via constructive trust, retroactive spousal support, and prejudgment interest on an equalization payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the limitation period for the unjust enrichment claim was tolled due to the appellant's fraudulent concealment of the property's true ownership.

The court also upheld the awards for retroactive spousal support and prejudgment interest, noting the appellant's history of non-disclosure and failure to pay adequate support.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and forcible seizure following an alleyway beating outside a nightclub.

At trial, the judge admitted a security guard's written statement identifying the appellant as a participant under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the statement lacked threshold reliability and that phone call evidence was mishandled.

He also appealed his three-and-a-half year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the hearsay evidence met the traditional exception's conditions, the jury was properly instructed, and the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the vigilante attack.

The appellant municipality appealed a summary judgment decision finding that the respondent, a 25-year employee, was constructively dismissed and entitled to a 26-month notice period.

The appellant solely challenged the motion judge's findings regarding the respondent's efforts to mitigate her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusions that the respondent's treatment was humiliating, that her decision not to apply for a job 50 km away was reasonable, and that her attendance at her brother's murder trial did not impermissibly hinder her job search.

The appellant appealed an order quashing his appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision that had found him incapable of consenting to treatment.

Before the initial appeal could be heard, the respondent determined the appellant had regained capacity, rendering the appeal moot.

The motion judge applied the Borowski test and declined to hear the moot appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion and concluding the case did not raise issues of public importance.

The appellant purchased a business from the respondent under a share purchase agreement that included a non-competition clause.

The appellant withheld the final payment, alleging the respondent breached the non-competition clause by funding a competing business started by his son.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the appellant's claim and allowing the respondent's counterclaim for the outstanding payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the test for summary judgment and his factual findings were amply supported by the evidentiary record.

The appellant father appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside an uncontested family law order.

The respondent mother had previously obtained custody, support, and equalization after the appellant failed to participate and was noted in default.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to set aside because the appellant failed to file a financial statement and there was no evidence the result would have been different.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the fundamental obligation to make financial disclosure and rejecting the appellant's attempt to rely on unsworn financial information filed for the first time on appeal.

The moving party brought motions to set aside the decisions of two chamber judges.

The first chamber judge held that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to issue an originating process such as a Notice of Application, and could only hear appeals from lower courts.

The second chamber judge agreed and granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the chamber judges' decisions and dismissed the motions, noting the appellant had taken no steps to perfect her appeal.

Trinity Western University (TWU), an evangelical Christian university, sought accreditation from the Law Society of Upper Canada for its proposed law school.

TWU requires students to sign a community covenant prohibiting sexual intimacy outside of heterosexual marriage.

The Law Society denied accreditation, finding the covenant discriminated against the LGBTQ community.

TWU appealed the Divisional Court's dismissal of its judicial review application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Law Society's decision was subject to a reasonableness standard of review.

The Court found that while the denial of accreditation infringed TWU's freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the Law Society reasonably balanced this infringement against its statutory mandate to protect the public interest and ensure equal access to the legal profession.

The respondent, a Canadian businessman, brought a libel action in Ontario against an Israeli newspaper regarding an article published online and in print.

The appellants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction, Israel was a more appropriate forum, and the action was an abuse of process.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction based on the tort being committed in Ontario, and that Israel was not clearly a more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The appellant, Onyx Corporation, appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully terminated an oral subcontract with the respondent, S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd., for snow removal services.

The trial judge found the oral subcontract was for a five-season term, mirroring the appellant's main contract with the municipality, rather than a season-by-season term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct principles for interpreting oral contracts and made no error in assessing damages based on expected revenues less mitigation.